U.S. Scientists See Big Power Savings From Conservation nytimes.com
But Bush's oil patch cronies can't figure out a profitable angle on that one, so it ain't going nowhere. Of all W's willfully wrong headed initiatives, energy has to be the dumbest; conservation would have near term, long lasting positive effects on the situation, but instead we get a lot of blather about drilling in Alaska, which might have some positive effect on the energy picture maybe 10 years from now.
Scientists at the country's national laboratories
have projected enormous energy savings if the
government takes aggressive steps to
encourage energy conservation in homes,
factories, offices, appliances, cars and power
plants.
Their studies, completed just before the Bush
administration took office, are at odds with the
administration's repeated assertions in recent
weeks that the nation needs to build a big new
power plant every week for the next 20 years
to keep up with the demand for electricity, and
that big increases in production of coal and
natural gas are needed to fuel those plants.
A lengthy and detailed report based on three
years of work by five national laboratories said
that a government-led efficiency program
emphasizing research and incentives to adopt
new technologies could reduce the growth in
electricity demand by 20 percent to 47 percent.
That would be the equivalent of between 265
and 610 big 300-megawatt power plants, a
steep reduction from the 1,300 new plants that
the administration predicts will be needed. The
range depends on how aggressively the
government encourages efficiency in buildings,
factories and appliances, as well as on the
price of energy, which affects whether new
technologies are economically attractive.
Another laboratory study found that
government office buildings could cut their
own use of power by one-fifth at no net cost to
the taxpayers by adopting widespread energy
conservation measures, paying for the estimated $5 billion investment with the energy
savings.
But the Bush administration, which is in the final stages of preparing a strategy to deal
with what it calls an energy crisis, has not publicized these findings, relying instead
primarily on advice from economists at the Energy Department's Energy Information
Agency, who often take a skeptical view of projected efficiency gains and predict a
much greater need for fossil fuel supplies.
Administration officials said that some of the national laboratories' studies were based
on theoretical assumptions that do not translate well into policy.
"We are looking for practical solutions here," said Jeanne Lopatto, a spokeswoman for
the Energy Department. "Whatever works, we're interested in. But some of these
ideas have been funded over many years and they have a very small impact on energy
needs."
Oh, sure. The national laboratories' studies aren't focused on making more money for W's buddies, so they're all "theoretical". |
